POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT:

CD-1 Rezoning Policy Issues - 1220 East Pender Street

 

RECOMMENDATION

- OR -

CONSIDERATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Relevant Council Policies for this site include:

· Strathcona Policies, approved June 25, 1992 and amended April 8, 1997;
· Industrial Lands Policies, approved March 14, 1995;
· Artist "Live/Work" Policies, approved March 28, 1995 ;
· Artist Studio Guidelines, approved September 10, 1996;
· "Strategic Directions" for live/work and work/live, adopted June 13, 1996; and
· CD-1 Rezoning - 289 Alexander Street, Industrial Work/Live Pilot Project, approved January 25, 2001.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

Proposed, is to rezone 1220 East Pender Street from I-2 Industrial District to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District to allow residential use in conjunction with any uses listed in the I-2 District Schedule (including various conditional-approval non-industrial uses). These proposed live/work units would be permitted in a near new, 43-unit strata-titled, industrial workshop building.

The application is contrary to several significant City policies pertaining to industrial lands, live/work and work/live. While it could be considered in the context of Council's "Strategic Directions" for work/live, it does not meet the intent of the policy to accommodate medium impact industrial uses in conjunction with residential occupancy. Even if the application was amended for these more limited uses, and if most of the project-specific criteria could be met, the project would be severely constrained in its ability to meet acceptable building code equivalencies for combining medium-impact industrial uses with residential use.

Staff recommend the application be refused. Alternatively, Council may wish to instruct staff to process the application in the normal manner.

BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL

Existing Industrial Building: The existing building was approved on January 29, 1998 (DE 402194) for Workshop use, utilizing the maximum allowable density of 3.0 floor space ratio (FSR), plus a level of underground parking. The internal configuration is 43 strata-titled workshop units with mezzanines ranging from about 93 m² (1,000 sq. ft.) to 186 m² (2,000 sq. ft).

While the building was under construction, staff received an inquiry about changing the use of the upper two floors (representing 2.2 FSR) from Workshop to "Artist Live/Work Studios". The inquirer was advised this could not be considered. Under I-2, "Artist Studio -Class B" and associated "Residential Unit" is only permitted in buildings existing prior to September 10, 1996, and then only to a maximum FSR of 1.0 and limited to rental accommodation.

Applicant's Proposal: The intent of the proposal is to allow Residential Unit associated with any I-2 use. The applicant states that since the building's completion in 1998, there has been little interest shown by typical industrial users, with only two units having uses permitted under I-2. The applicant further states there has been greater interest in combining living units with working units. The applicant feels the proposed uses are appropriate, as there is an existing mix of residential and I-2 uses in the area. The applicant also states that the addition of a residential component in this building would help to reduce crime in the area.

It should be noted that I-2 uses include various conditional-approval uses under the generic headings of Office, Retail, Service, Institutional and Cultural and Recreational - many of which would not be permitted in this industrial area.

POLICY ISSUES

This rezoning application to permit a living unit along with any outright or conditional-approval use under I-2, including office and retail uses, is contrary to several Council-adopted policies. An assessment of this application against these policies is summarized in Appendix A.

Notwithstanding these policies, in 1996 Council approved Strategic Directions for live/work and work/live uses which established criteria against which rezoning applications, with the uses limited to industrial work/live, could be considered. The criteria are summarized below.
Strategic Directions (1996): These policies establish, amongst other things, criteria for considering industrial work/live on a CD-1 rezoning basis, including "experimental, Industrial Work/Live projects on some M and I sites in new construction, strata-title and rental basis." The intent of the policy is to accommodate medium-impact industrial uses in conjunction with residential occupancy, subject to:

· consideration for low-income individuals;
· prospective purchasers made aware of types of uses in the building and their impacts;
· consultation with neighbouring residents and businesses;
· a limit of 300 units over five years;
· need for a Building By-law mechanism to permit industrial processes with residential occupancy, for example fire-wall type separation and limiting types of industrial uses;
· limit to number of occupants to two;
· provide adequate sized work areas at a ratio of one-third living space to two-thirds work space;
· dwelling use will not be permitted in the work space;
· provide adequate functional features for industrial use, for example freight elevators, door sizes, plumbing, ventilation, floor load capacity;
· provide common building space for meetings, recreating, shared work support needs;
· monitor projects by requiring post-occupancy surveys;
· develop parking/loading/security solutions;
· a minimum of 75 units and a maximum of 150 units; and
· provide amenities for residents and workers, which may include a component of affordable housing.

The policy states that experimental industrial work/live rezoning sites should meet the following criteria:

· good truck and transit access;
· proximity to business suppliers and customers;
· low impact on nearby industrial operations;
· ability to act as a transition, mitigating impact of existing industrial uses on adjacent existing residential areas; and
· reasonable attractiveness of the area for living (access to parks and shopping, safety, etc.).

The policy instructs staff to evaluate rezoning applications against the above-noted criteria for early report to Council.

The rezoning application does not propose limiting the I-2 uses to medium impact industrial uses, and the applicant has indicated no interest in amending the application with this limitation. However, even if the application was amended for these more limited uses, and if most of the project-specific criteria could be met, the project would be severely constrained in its ability to meet acceptable building code equivalencies for combining medium-impact industrial uses with residential use.

The Chief Building Official advises: "The City of Vancouver Building By-law does not permit the combination of industrial uses with residential occupancy, except for artist live/work studios. Any equivalency approach to put residential uses into an existing industrial building will be highly problematic and may result in intrusive and costly modifications to the building which would likely render the whole exercise uneconomic. In some circumstances, no equivalency approach may be feasible."

CD-1 Rezoning - 289 Alexander Street, Industrial Work /Live Pilot Project, approved, January 25, 2001: Since the adoption of the Strategic Directions, Council has approved one CD-1 Text amendment for 289 Alexander Street to permit industrial work/live use in the industrial component of this mixed-use (artist live/work and industrial) development.

The criteria for rezonings in M and I districts were not strictly applied because the site was already zoned CD-1. However, the building already provided amenities for residents in the pre-existing artist live/work component, and met many of the functional criteria for industrial work/live uses. As part of its conditional approval of the rezoning, Council resolved that prior to enactment, building code equivalencies would need to be developed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. As this was a pilot project, Council also resolved to instruct staff to undertake a post-occupancy review one year after the industrial work/live units are occupied (following enactment).

When Council approved this pilot industrial work/live rezoning, there was no motion to limit further experimental rezonings until it is enacted and/or the post-occupancy report is done. However, the building code equivalencies for 289 Alexander Street have yet to be completed (allowing for enactment of the rezoning and occupancy). 1220 East Pender Street faces greater limitations than 289 Alexander Street, in meeting the functional criteria for industrial work/live uses and in attaining acceptable building code equivalencies, as noted above.

OTHER ISSUES

Use and Density: The form of development which was approved and built - 43 individual Workshop units in three storeys with internal mezzanines at 3.0 FSR - likely explains why there is limited interest from conventional I-2 industrial users. However, this form was chosen by the developer at the time with full knowledge that the building would not be convertible to live/work units.

It should also be noted that while the adjacent RT-3 Kiwassa neighbourhood permits residential use, this is generally limited to a range of 0.60 to 0.75 FSR as opposed to 3.0 FSR in live/work use, proposed by the rezoning.

Crime Deterrence: Staff acknowledge that the adjacent Kiwassa neighbourhood has a higher level of crime than many other areas of the city, and adding residential use to this site may provide more evening and overnight guardianship of this industrial block as a benefit to the neighbourhood. However, there is no precedent or Council policy which supports rezoning industrial areas for this reason.

Community Comments: The applicant has submitted a 180-signature petition from the Kiwassa Neighbourhood, a 67-signature petition from businesses and residents in the I-2 area, and numerous letters in support of the rezoning. Staff have no way of knowing how the project information and City policy implications have been presented to the public by the applicant or his planning consultant.

Staff are aware of an unauthorized community police office located in the building. The fact of this facility being in the building may have some connection with the community input regarding the perceived crime deterrence benefit of the proposal.

New Land Use Opportunities under I-2: Shortly after this application was submitted, on February 20, 2001 Council enacted an amendment to relax Office use provisions under I-2 by conditionally permitting General Office uses limited to manufacturer's agent, import broker or similar uses, to a maximum of 1.0 FSR. This relaxation may provide additional opportunities for the applicant under the existing I-2 zoning. The applicant was advised of this amendment but decided to maintain his rezoning application.

CONCLUSION

Staff conclude that the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with Council's policies to retain this industrial area in industrial use, to maintain Vernon Drive as the dividing line between residential and industrial uses, and to not support live/work uses including all outright and conditional approval I-2 uses.

While there is potential for the proposal to meet many of the criteria outlined in Council's "Strategic Directions" for live/work and work/live, it does not meet the intent of the policy to accommodate medium impact industrial uses in conjunction with residential occupancy, as it seeks to include all uses permitted in I-2 in conjunction with residential use. Even if the application were revised to be consistent with the policy, with the use limited to industrial work/live, the limitations of the existing industrial building to meet building code equivalencies may result in intrusive and costly modifications to the building which would likely render the combining of medium intensity industrial uses with residential uses uneconomic. In some circumstances, no equivalency approach may be feasible.

Staff recommend that the application be refused. Alternatively, Council could instruct staff to process the application, in the normal manner. Processing in the normal manner involves neighbourhood notification and consultation with other departments and agencies for a report back with recommendations.

APPLICANTS COMMENTS

The applicant wishes to speak to the report before Council rather than provide written comments.

* * * * *

COUNCIL POLICY

Strathcona Policies (1992): One of the Strathcona policies instructed staff to report back on land use options in the industrial area on the edge of the Kiwassa neighbourhood from Vernon Drive to Clark Drive. The review was completed, and industrial use for this area was confirmed as part of the Industrial Land Policies as noted below.

The Industrial Land Policies (1995): Council resolved that all industrial lands in the Powell Street/Clark Drive industrial area (with the exception of the Hastings Street "let-go" area), including the subject industrial pocket adjacent to the Kiwassa neighbourhood, should be retained for industrial use in order to accommodate demand for industrial activity within the inner city.

The primary concerns against permitting non-industrial use in this area are incompatibility issues and resulting increases in property values and lease rates resulting in industrial users being forced to look for affordable space elsewhere. This kind of trend would jeopardize the viability of the industrial area.

Approval of the rezoning application would be contrary to this policy.

Artist Live/Work Policies (1995) and Zoning Amendments (1996): These policies encourage the provision of safe, functional and affordable artist live/work studios, while discouraging industrial displacement and limiting the impact of raised property values in all industrial districts. Zoning By-law amendments and adopted Artist Studio Guidelines implemented these policies in 1996.

Most of the city's industrial zones, including I-2, permit only the industrially-oriented Artist Studio-Class B along with associated Residential Unit, and only in pre-1996 buildings, limited to a maximum of 1.0 FSR and with no strata titling. The only exception is IC-3 (Brewery Creek) where the less industrially-oriented Artist Studio - Class A and associated Residential Unit is permitted to a maximum of 2.5 FSR, and where strata-titling is permitted.

Approval of the rezoning application would be contrary to these policies and regulations.

Amended Strathcona Policies (1997): The Strathcona Policies were amended to confirm Vernon Drive as the boundary line between I-2 zoning and the RT-3 zoned Kiwassa neighbourhood. The policy supports privately initiated rezonings to RT-3 for a few isolated I-2 zoned lots within the RT-3 area west of Vernon Drive. The policy recognizes there are a few lots to the east of Vernon Drive historically zoned RT-3 as shown on the map on page 2, but any further rezonings to permit residential use on the east side of Vernon Drive will not be supported.

Approval of the rezoning would be contrary to this policy.

* * * * *